Homami v. Iranzadi

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Homami v. Iranzadi
Court California Court of Appeal
Citation Homami v. Iranzadi
Date decided June 26, 1989


  • Mr. Homami = "Homami" = plaintiff = lender
  • Mr. Iranzadi = "Iranzadi" = defendant = borrower
  • Homami & Iranzadi are brothers-in-law
  • Homami lent Iranzadi $250,000 to pay for a real estate transaction involving 2 properties.
  • The promissory notes stated that the loans didn't bear interest.
  • Iranzadi made payments of about $40,000/month.
  • Next, the 2 parties modified the promissory notes to accelerate the due date of the entire loans to the upcoming September.
  • The loans modification stipulated that after June 22, 1985, interest would be charged on the loans at a rate of 18%/year.
  • All of a suddenly, Iranzadi stopped making payments.

Procedural History

The 2 properties of Iranzadi went into foreclosure because Homami filed notices of default.

  • Iranzadi sold 1 property & paid back $125,000.
  • Iranzadi, however, didn't pay back the full $125,000 after selling the 2nd property.
  • Therefore, Homami didn't receive back the full $250,000 he had lent--let alone any interest.

Homami sued for breach of contract.

At trial, Homami told the court that the 2 parties had agreed to not report the interest payments in the modified contract to avoid paying taxes.

Homamai won in the California trial court.


Is a contract with an illegal purpose void?


Yes. A contract with an illegal purpose is contrary to public policy & void.




3 judge panel: Courts refuse to enforce illegal agreements even if the non-enforcement benefits opposing parties because non-enforcement is a deterrent.


Courts won't help when

  1. un-licensed professionals or contractors sue customers for non-payments
  2. recovery of money is from illegal gambling
  3. contracts that break or avoid federal law